Something I attempt to consider a lot is the writing and musing of what happens in this particular form. I want to know why certain people are considered as individuals with a face, or a name, and why they might have something the other might not be able to conclude. I figure that on occassion I want to see what is possible because it does no good trying to be the good person. All the time.
I think it would be cool to write a bit on the philosophy of language and speech and how these ideas intersect into a medium that is quite comparative to the qualities that exist in current models of thinking. In particular the model of the Brazilian. We see that some individuals determine qualities based on an innate assumption on background and there is a desire to fulfill that assumption with laws and other regulatory systems of nature in order to figure out what it may mean in some future or abstract art. More important I believe it can display ones intention/actions/emotions/finitude.
To themselves.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Suggestion for first paper (March 4 2015)
What are some of the different linguistic models? What are examples I can peruse to talk about the subject. In particular maybe an idea on Anthropology. Could be a positive idea.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
Musing on Marx
I guess I think I am getting a little confused about Marx and what he is attempting to convey. He conveys his relationship to capital and mathematics. I may be a little early in suggesting this confusion I have.
I wonder if there is a particular task I can do to understand this theorization a bit better. The professor seems to know what he talks on Marx. I assume there is a theory here that needs better understanding.
Last I want to see what the relationship are between him and some of this counterpart story. What is it that Marx actually says? How does Marx have a role in what Wolff fits, as a professor on Marx? As in, how is the interpretation something that is relevant and guided correctly? I do not feel like this professor is one I should question as much. In detail. But I scrutinize him well.
What I want to know is where the other Theorists also fit in this discussion of Marx. Right now it is on Ricardo, but, where to discern the others? I do not know if it is possible to figure it out. Also do not plan to have a complete grasp on the subject since it is all still relatively new to me. Not known to me.
His theories seem to stem off a certain premise that some people are born with great talent and ability to write and conceive a message that is worthy of pause. For a cause. ...
I tend to treat Marx this way too, as it seems that he has a lot of 'factual' things to say regarding the way society is constructed. Maybe in the imaginary, or it may be that I am referencing the structure of it all. There is the possibility of this as well.
*
Right now I wish I can talk to Nick about some of these ideas. It seems that the suggestion of Kant and use of Ricardo &co is helping to understand and interpret the text particular to the methods that Nick employs. Thus I want to understand in that context. Along with my own experience ways and form of wisdom. It would help to have a deep and connected model of how these ideas work in the scheme of larger fantasies i.e. societies.
Also, an additional idea to consider. The anthropological finding and how Marx constructs the reality of others. What it means to have a realist construction. Now I wonder if I am merely going on a writing overload.
Definitely need to talk to Nick about this.
Labour and the use of value- common theme in book.
I wonder if there is a particular task I can do to understand this theorization a bit better. The professor seems to know what he talks on Marx. I assume there is a theory here that needs better understanding.
Last I want to see what the relationship are between him and some of this counterpart story. What is it that Marx actually says? How does Marx have a role in what Wolff fits, as a professor on Marx? As in, how is the interpretation something that is relevant and guided correctly? I do not feel like this professor is one I should question as much. In detail. But I scrutinize him well.
What I want to know is where the other Theorists also fit in this discussion of Marx. Right now it is on Ricardo, but, where to discern the others? I do not know if it is possible to figure it out. Also do not plan to have a complete grasp on the subject since it is all still relatively new to me. Not known to me.
His theories seem to stem off a certain premise that some people are born with great talent and ability to write and conceive a message that is worthy of pause. For a cause. ...
I tend to treat Marx this way too, as it seems that he has a lot of 'factual' things to say regarding the way society is constructed. Maybe in the imaginary, or it may be that I am referencing the structure of it all. There is the possibility of this as well.
*
Right now I wish I can talk to Nick about some of these ideas. It seems that the suggestion of Kant and use of Ricardo &co is helping to understand and interpret the text particular to the methods that Nick employs. Thus I want to understand in that context. Along with my own experience ways and form of wisdom. It would help to have a deep and connected model of how these ideas work in the scheme of larger fantasies i.e. societies.
Also, an additional idea to consider. The anthropological finding and how Marx constructs the reality of others. What it means to have a realist construction. Now I wonder if I am merely going on a writing overload.
Definitely need to talk to Nick about this.
Labour and the use of value- common theme in book.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)